Pharmacist Suspended Again Following Continued Lack of Insight Into Dishonesty, Substance Misuse, and Unlawful Possession of Medicines

In the original Principal Hearing, the registrant was found to have:

• Possessed unlabelled prescription-only medicines at his residence.
• Removed medicines from a pharmacy dishonestly, claiming—without evidence—that he had permission or paid cash.
• Tested positive for cocaine and MDMA through hair analysis.
• Admitted to smoking cannabis, though he later denied saying so.

The Committee found that the registrant had:

• Provided multiple contradictory accounts to police and regulators.
• Attempted to tailor his explanations to fit known evidence.
• Demonstrated limited insight, and failed to provide meaningful reflections or remediation.

At that hearing, a 12-month suspension was imposed, with clear instructions for the registrant to:

• Submit a reflective statement addressing insight into dishonesty and substance misuse.
• Provide testimonials and proof of sustained behavioural change.
• Attend future hearings and demonstrate personal development.

February 2020 Review Findings

At the first review, the registrant:

• Submitted a short witness statement and testimonials.
• Chose not to give oral evidence, citing fear of forgetting important points.

The Committee found:

• His reflections focused mainly on personal hardship, rather than the impact on public confidence.
• Testimonials lacked credibility or full awareness of the case.
• CPD evidence was irrelevant to the misconduct (focused on clinical skills).

The GPhC concluded the registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired, and extended his suspension by six months.

Current (September 2020) Review Findings

At this second review, the registrant:

• Did not attend in person, citing work commitments.
• Submitted a short reflective statement via counsel.

Counsel argued that the registrant:

• Had addressed his past failings.
• No longer used drugs.
• Was financially and emotionally stable.
• Had support networks and coping mechanisms in place.

However, the Committee found that:

“The reflective statement was undated, unsigned, and unsupported by any statement of truth. It failed to address many of the specific issues raised in previous hearings.”

The Committee also noted:

• No new evidence of voluntary work, training, or insight.
• No updated testimonials or proof of workplace reliability.
• No documentation showing efforts to rebuild trust or understand professional standards and drug safety.

The registrant claimed to have “applied himself” and been supervised, but offered no evidence to support these assertions.

“Assertions were made without verification—no supporting documentation, no oral evidence, and no credible engagement with the disciplinary process.”

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired based on:

• Lack of genuine insight into past dishonesty and misconduct
• Ongoing risk to public confidence
• Repeated failure to follow clear regulatory guidance

The Committee stated:

“The registrant has done little more than the bare minimum to discharge the burden of proof. Most of his claims were unsupported, vague, and not subjected to scrutiny.”

Sanction

The GPhC again rejected:

• Conditions – as behavioural issues, especially dishonesty, could not be addressed through standard practice restrictions.
• Removal – considered premature, though likely if improvement is not shown.

Instead, the registrant was given a further six-month suspension, with a strong warning that:

“Future Committees will expect direct oral evidence, documented evidence of learning, rehabilitation, and credible testimonial support.”

An interim suspension was also imposed to protect the public during the appeal period.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Dishonesty and substance misuse are serious professional breaches – even outside clinical settings, they can lead to suspension or removal.
2. Insight and reflection must be specific, truthful, and evidence-based – vague statements and unsupported claims will not satisfy regulatory standards.
3. GPhC reviews are not procedural check-ins – they require clear evidence of change and learning.
4. Failure to engage fully shows a lack of professional responsibility – missing hearings and avoiding scrutiny weakens a registrant’s case.
5. Suspension is not indefinite protection – repeated non-compliance can and often will result in erasure.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates how sustained dishonesty, substance misuse, and regulatory non-engagement can erode a pharmacy professional’s standing over time. The GPhC has now twice extended the registrant’s suspension, and the message is clear: without concrete evidence of insight and reform, removal from the register is increasingly likely.